photo #9176193

The case of Gary Harrington of Eagle Point, Oregon, exemplifies the tension between property rights and state water resource management in the United States. In 2012, the then-64-year-old was sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $1,500 for constructing three illegal water reservoirs on his 170-acre property. Over approximately 13 years, Harrington had built three dams to collect rainwater and snowmelt runoff. The largest dam stood 20 feet tall, with two others reaching approximately 10 feet. The reservoirs held nearly 13 million gallons of water—enough to fill approximately 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Harrington stocked one reservoir with largemouth bass and constructed docking facilities for recreational use. Harrington's case became a focal point for the clash between individual property rights and state resource management. He maintained that the water falling on his land belonged to him and that he was merely harvesting precipitation for personal use and wildfire suppression. However, Oregon law treats all water as a publicly owned resource under a legal framework known as the "prior appropriation" doctrine. Under this system, individuals wishing to use water must obtain permits from the Oregon Water Resources Department. Small-scale rainwater collection from artificial impervious surfaces—such as rooftops for use in rain barrels—remains legal without permits. However, constructing dams to divert and store flowing water requires specific water-right permits. Harrington did not possess the necessary permits. The conflict intensified over years of escalating legal action. The state initially approved permits for Harrington's reservoirs in 2003, then revoked them in 2007. Following an earlier conviction, Harrington received three years' probation and was ordered to open the reservoir gates. When his probation expired, he closed the gates and refilled the reservoirs, prompting renewed legal action. In July 2012, a jury convicted Harrington on nine counts of water misuse. The court sentenced him to 30 days in jail, imposed a $1,500 fine, and ordered the dams breached and the reservoirs drained. Harrington's case illustrates the complexity of water law in the United States. The "prior appropriation" doctrine ensures that water continues to feed streams and aquifers that support downstream communities and ecosystems. State officials argued that even on private property, water diversions must be regulated to protect the interconnected water systems upon which entire regions depend. However, the case also sparked debate about government authority and property rights. Harrington maintained that the state was overreaching and that modern regulations expanding historical water laws exceeded constitutional limitations on government power. Rainwater harvesting legality varies significantly across U.S. states. Many states encourage small-scale residential collection for conservation purposes. Others, particularly in drought-prone regions like Colorado and Utah, impose strict limitations, with some allowing only 110 gallons for residential use or requiring mandatory registration for larger systems. This patchwork of regulations reflects the competing priorities of environmental protection, water conservation, and individual property rights. Source: Oregon Water Resources Department. (2012). Case Summary: State v. Harrington. Jackson County Circuit Court Records.